When we look at politics, we often see the same picture: There are often older people in the pulpits, in party headquarters, in parliaments. But it is not only biological age that is at stake here. The real issue is the ways of thinking that harden over time and institutional reflexes that resist change. Politics seems to be the domain of habits and entrenched mentalities rather than the energy of youth. This is why political institutions sometimes resemble a sanctuary with unchanging rules rather than a vibrant public square.
The analogy of a temple is illustrative. Not everyone enters the temple; those who do follow certain rules. There is a hierarchy inside. The right to speak is limited. Rituals are repeated. We see a similar order in politics. Internal party mechanisms, parliamentary procedures, leader cults and titles are all geared towards maintaining a certain structure. At the center of this structure are often “senior” figures who have been there for a long time. They know the system, they know the language, they know the boundaries. Like the priests of a temple, they are the guardians of the sacred order within.
Historically, this is not surprising. In the ancient world, there was a conscious link between governance and age. Plato argued that the state should be governed by wise people and thought that wisdom would develop over time. Aristotle says that political virtue matures through habit and experience. In Rome, the word Senate directly meant “the assembly of elders”. Throughout history, politics has been characterized by the stability of old age rather than the breakthrough of youth.
But the problem is not only age. The problem is that institutions turn into shrines over time. Every political structure that turns into a temple first becomes detached from the people. The mechanism, which was initially established for the society, focuses on protecting its own internal functioning. The language changes; the concepts spoken inside become distant from the daily life of the ordinary citizen. Discussions continue, decisions are taken, but these discussions are disconnected from the pulse of real life.
This rupture excludes two groups the most: young people and women.
Youth pushes the walls of the temple with its energy and questioning attitude. But the established order perceives change as a threat. Seniority, experience and “knowing the procedures” put invisible barriers in front of the youth. Thus, instead of being the subjects of politics, the youth turn into spectators.
For women, the picture is even deeper. This is because the political sanctuary has been historically woven not only with age, but also with masculinity. For centuries, the public sphere has been identified with the male mind, while women have been confined to the confines of the private sphere. Even in ancient thought, the political subject was often conceived as the male citizen; for example, Aristotle, when describing the political community, does not see women as decision-making subjects. Although legal equality has been achieved in the modern era, cultural codes have not been completely resolved.
Therefore, even if the doors of the temple appear open to women, the language, the show of power and the form of competition inside often reproduce a male-dominated tradition. A woman politician is not only engaged in a political struggle, but also has to cross an invisible cultural threshold. Representation increases, but equality remains symbolic if the spirit of decision-making remains unchanged.
One of the most prominent rituals of the temple is the endless meetings. A meeting is normally a problem-solving tool. But in institutions that have turned into temples, meetings are often held not to produce solutions, but to maintain order. Hour-long sessions, repetitive speeches, inconclusive draft decisions... The problem is not solved, but there seems to be movement. The existing power structure is re-staged and legitimized.
Here the meeting ceases to be a tool, it becomes a ceremony. The priests of the temple come together, reproducing the hierarchy. Whether a decision is taken or not, the main purpose is to show that the order continues. Producing a real solution requires change and, most importantly, transformation; change and transformation can shake the walls of the temple.
As Max Weber points out, over time bureaucratic structures sanctify their own rules. Agenda items are read, the floor is given, minutes are taken. The ritual is complete. But nothing may change in the daily lives of the people. Problems are carried over to the next meeting. Thus, politics begins to manage time instead of finding solutions.
Today, even in powerful institutions such as the United States Senate, for example, there is often criticism that long deliberative processes often function to protect positions. This is not unique to one country or organizational structure. In many places, politics can become a means of distributing responsibility and reinforcing the existing structure rather than making decisions.
The picture that emerges is this: An aging politics that reproduces itself with male-dominated codes starts to suck the dynamism out of society. Young people move away, women are literally not allowed in, hope retreats. While people wait for a solution in front of the door, rituals continue inside.
After a while the most dangerous thing happens: People lose faith that politics can actually produce solutions. The biggest collapse is not the wrong decisions; it is the decision-making that is out of touch with real life.
If politics is to truly exist in the name of the people, it must thin the walls of the temple. Seniority should be a guide to change, not a barrier to it. The meeting must become a means of solving the problem, not updating power. And most importantly, politics must cease to be a space confined to neither age nor gender.
Otherwise, the issue is not old age; the issue is that a sacralized and masculinized political structure tires society.
And then the question can no longer be postponed:
Will politics be a square that produces solutions, or a temple that only confirms its own existence?